coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Križevci.
5.  The applicant was dismissed from work on 15 November 1991. Even though that decision of the employer was subsequently quashed by the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) on 10 October 1994, the applicant has never been reinstated.
6.  On 18 December 1995 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the employer, seeking compensation for his salary.
7.  On 4 June 1997 the court obtained the opinion of an expert accountant. At the hearing held on 22 September 1997 the applicant objected to the expert opinion; and the court requested additional observations from the expert.
8.  On 16 April 1998 the court held a hearing at which the applicant objected to the expert opinion and requested additional written observations from the expert witness. On 15 June 1998 the applicant requested another expert opinion. On 9 February 1999 the court obtained another opinion from a different expert.
9.  On 2 March 1999 the applicant requested a fresh expert opinion. A new one was obtained on 17 January 2000. The applicant objected to that opinion as well.
10.  In his rush notes of 20 October 2000 and 8 February 2001, the applicant urged the court to schedule a hearing.
11.  The court obtained an additional expert opinion on 10 March 2001 and heard the expert on 19 March 2001. The applicant again objected to the opinion. On 18 September 2001 he requested that the appointed expert withdraw and a new opinion be obtained. He also requested withdrawal of the trial judge. On 21 September 2001 the court transferred the case-file to another judge and appointed a new expert.
12.  On 4 October 2001 the court ordered the applicant to give better particulars of his claim. At the hearing on 20 November 2001 the expert replied to the objections of the applicant; and the employer was ordered to submit additional documents.
13.  On 16 January 2002 the applicant urged the court to continue the proceedings, as the employer had failed to provide the requested documents.
14.  On 15 February 2002 the court decided to hear the financial expert witness.
15.  On 18 August 2002 the applicant filed a constitutional complaint under section 63 of the Constitutional Act on the Constitutional Court, complaining about the length of the proceedings.
16.  On 12 February 2003 the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) dismissed the applicant’s complaint. It found that the Municipal Court had proceeded with due diligence. It also concluded that the applicant contributed to the length of the proceedings by asking seven times for an additional expert opinion. In those circumstances, the Constitutional Court found that the proceedings had not lasted unreasonably long.
17.  Subsequently, on 31 January 2003 the main hearing was closed. On 7 May 2003 the court gave judgment dismissing the applicant’s claim. On appeal, on 11 May 2004 the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu) upheld the first-instance judgment.
18.  The applicant filed an appeal on points of law and the proceedings are currently pending before the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske).
5.  The applicants live in the Voronezh Region.
6.  They are in receipt of welfare payments for their children. In 1999 – 2001 the applicants brought separate sets of civil proceedings against a local welfare authority, claiming arrears in those payments.
7.  On the dates set out in appendix 1 the domestic courts granted the applicants’ claims and ordered the welfare authority to pay them the respective amounts. The enforcement proceedings were commenced accordingly.
8.  On 26 July 2001 the bailiffs discontinued the enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgments in the applicants’ favour and returned the writs of execution to them referring to the lack of the debtor’s funds.
9.  Thereafter the applicants unsuccessfully applied to various public bodies seeking to have the judgments in their favour enforced.
10.  In January and February 2004 the applicants were paid the amounts due pursuant to the writs of execution.
4.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Tatabánya.
5.  On 21 May 1992 the applicant brought an action against her husband for divorce, custody of their children, child maintenance and the division of matrimonial property.
6.  On 17 May 1993 the Tatabánya District Court declared the parties’ divorce and granted the applicant custody of the children. The court also ordered the defendant to pay maintenance, regulated his visiting rights and divided the use of their common flat, giving ⅔ of the space to the applicant and the children, and ⅓ to the defendant.
7.  On 15 July 1993 the applicant appealed against this decision, seeking exclusive use of the flat and the reduction of the defendant’s visiting rights.
8.  On 22 September 1994 the Komárom-Esztergom County Regional Court quashed the appealed part of the first-instance judgment and remitted the case, in this respect, to the District Court.
9.  In the resumed proceedings, the District Court held a hearing and appointed two valuation experts on 4 September 1995. Further hearings took place on 3 June 1996, 10 June 1997, 1 September 1998, 25 January 1999, 14 February, 6 September and 25 October 2000.
10.  On 8 January 2001 the court ordered the completion of the experts’ opinions. Further hearings were held on 31 August and 27 November 2001.
11.  On 18 December 2001 the District Court granted the applicant ownership of the flat and ordered her to pay 927,282 Hungarian forints (HUF) in compensation to the defendant. It dismissed the remainder of her claims.
12.  On 24 April 2002 the Regional Court confirmed the first-instance decision. This decision was served on 10 May 2002.
4.  The applicants were born in 1944 and 1936 respectively and live in Brno.
5.  On 28 December 1992 the applicants prepared a civil action against the private company V. and Ms M. for the return of their ownership share in the private company V., amounting to CZK 120,000 (EUR 4,229). According to the Government, having received the applicants’ action on 13 January 1993, the Brno Regional Commercial Court (krajský obchodní soud) sent it to the defendants for their written comments.
6.  On 20 July 1994 the applicants requested the court to accept an extension of their action to include Mr S. and the private company R. as defendants. The court received the request on 10 August 1994.
7.  On 20 September 1994 the applicants requested the court to adopt interim measures against Ms M., but the court did not react to their request.
8.  On 20 January 1997 the court accepted the applicants’ extension of their action, against which Mr S. and the company R. appealed on 3 February 1997. The next day, the appeal was sent to the other parties to the proceedings. On 3 July 1997 the appellants were invited to supplement their appeal.
9.  On 21 July 1999 the Olomouc High Court (vrchní soud) received new submissions. On 30 November 1999 it sent the case back to the Regional Commercial Court.
10.  On 2 June 2000 the second applicant, upon the court’s request of 3 May 2000, provided information as to the name of his legal representative in 1997.
11.  On 4 October 2001 the Regional Commercial Court invited the appellants, once again, to supplement their appeal.
12.  On 5 February and 14 May 2002 respectively, the court contacted the central register of citizens (centrální evidence obyvatel) to determine the second defendant’s domicile.
13.  On 2 June 2003 the court asked the Czech Post Office (Česká pošta) about the effective delivery of mail to the second defendant. It repeated its request on 5 January and 30 June 2004 respectively.
14.  It appears that the proceedings are still pending before the High Court.
4.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Ács, Hungary.
5.  In April 1993 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant and his accomplices on charges of counterfeiting money and of other offences.
6.  On 6 December 1994 a bill of indictment was preferred.
7.  The Tatabánya District Court held hearings on 20, 21 April, 9 May and 13 June 1995. On the latter date it ordered that the investigation be resumed. The time-limit for the completion of the investigation was prolonged on 7 September and 27 October 1995, and also at the hearings on 7 December 1995, 4 June and 13 November 1996. Simultaneously, legal assistance was being sought from the Slovak authorities.
8.  Further hearings took place on 17 April, 7 October, 13 November and 11 December 1997. At the hearing on 22 January 1998 the case against two co-defendants was separated since they were abroad. Another hearing was held on 29 January 1998.
9.  On 4 February 1998 the District Court convicted the applicant of abuse of explosives and sentenced him to ten months’ imprisonment, suspended for two years.
10.  On 20 March 2000 the Komárom-Esztergom County Regional Court quashed this judgment, essentially for procedural shortcomings, and remitted the case. It ordered that the case be given priority.
11.  In the resumed proceedings the case fell within the Regional Court’s jurisdiction acting at first instance due to a legislative change.
12.  The Regional Court held hearings on 7 February and 26, 27 and 28 June 2001. On the latter date it appointed a medical expert. A further hearing was held and another expert appointed on 27 September 2001.
13.  Additional hearings took place on 1 March, 12 April, 30 August, 22 November and 20 December 2002.
14.  After further hearings on 22 January, 25 February and 9 May 2003, on 22 May 2003 the court convicted the applicant of abuse of explosives and sentenced him to eight months’ imprisonment, suspended for one year. For the applicant, the judgment became final on the same day.
4.  The applicant was born in 1928 and lives in Budapest.
5.  In the context of a real estate dispute, the applicant and her late husband brought an action before the Buda Surroundings District Court apparently in July 1987. The action concerned their claim to possess part of a disputed real estate and their request that the relevant land registry entry be rectified.
6.  On 20 November 1996 the District Court gave a partial decision as to the boundaries of the disputed land. As regards the land registry entry, the District Court ordered that this question be severed and dealt with by the Administrative Chamber of the District Court.
7.  On 23 September 1997 the Pest County Regional Court suspended the appellate proceedings concerning the partial decision, pending the proceedings before the Administrative Chamber of the District Court. The latter held hearings on 7 October and 2 December 1997 and 27 January 1998. On that date it rejected part of the action and suspended the examination of another aspect of the case.
8.  Meanwhile, the applicant and her late husband filed an application (no. 26209/95) with the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission”) complaining in essence about the protraction of the proceedings. On 21 May 1997 the application was declared partly admissible. On 9 December 1997 the First Chamber of the Commission adopted its Report under former Article 28 of the Convention, observing that the parties had concluded a friendly settlement.
9.  On 22 June 1998 the Pest County Regional Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ appeal against the decision of 27 January 1998. On 14 June 1999 the Supreme Court dismissed their petition for review.
10.  Following the subsequent adjudication of the question whose examination had been suspended on 27 January 1998 – in those proceedings the Regional Court held a hearing on 18 June 2001 and gave judgement on 25 June 2001 – the proceedings resumed in their part suspended on 23 September 1997.
11.  The Regional Court held hearings on 9 May, 13 June and 1 October 2002. On 22 October 2002 it accepted the plaintiffs’ claims and ordered the land registry to restore the original situation. On 20 March 2003 it rejected the plaintiffs’ request for rectification.
12.  In the resumed administrative proceedings, on 7 July 2004 the Buda Surroundings Land Registry refused to restore the original situation, observing that this was impossible because of the physical and legal changes concerning the disputed land in the meantime.
13.  On 10 December 2004 the Pest County Land Registry dismissed the applicant’s administrative appeal.
14.  On 24 January 205 the applicant brought an action for judicial review. A first hearing was scheduled by the Regional Court for 15 September 2005.
4.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Diósd.
5.  On 25 February 1994 the applicant brought an action in the Ráckeve District Court for the division of the common ownership of a house. She requested that the case be given priority.
6.  The court held hearings on 28 April, 7 October 1994 and 16 February 1995. On 7 March 1995 it appointed two experts. Further hearings took place on 18 September, 8 December 1995, 25 April and 28 June 1996.
7.  On 5 July 1996 the District Court gave judgment.
8.  On appeal, the Pest County Regional Court held hearings on 20 February and 9 October 1997. On the latter date it suspended the proceedings pending the determination of a preliminary question. On 26 May 1998 it quashed the first-instance decision and remitted the case to the District Court, instructing it to arrange for the owner of the real property in question, a minor, to join the proceedings. On 7 October 1998 a guardian ad litem was appointed to this end. On 2 December 1998 the owner joined the proceedings.
9.  In the resumed proceedings, hearings took place on 25 February and 19 April 1999. On 10 April 2000 the applicant’s lawyer urged that a hearing be scheduled. On 13 June 2000 a hearing took place and experts were appointed.
10.  On 7 September 2000 several other defendants joined the proceedings. On 12 September 2000 the court held a hearing and ordered an on-site inspection. This took place on 6 November 2000. The expert’s opinion reached the court on 4 December 2000.
11.  At the hearing on 30 January 2001, an elaboration of the opinion was ordered. Further hearings took place on 13 March, 24 April, 22 May 2001 and 10 January 2002.
12.  At the hearing on 25 June 2002 the court decided to appoint another expert. This expert was appointed on 12 July and his opinion obtained on 30 November 2002. The hearing scheduled for 11 February 2003 was adjourned because the expert was indisposed.
13.  On 11 March 2003 some of the defendants gave better particulars of their counterclaims. On 3 December 2003 they were instructed further to specify their claims. On 30 January 2004 their motion for bias was dismissed. On 18 February 2004 the court again instructed them further to specify their claims.
14.  On 20 April 2004 the court dismissed the counterclaims as unsubstantiated. This decision was quashed by the Regional Court on 23 September 2004.
15.  On 1 December 2004 the court partly discontinued the proceedings concerning certain defendants.
16.  On 15 February 2005 the court held a hearing and delivered a partial decision concerning an ancillary question. On 22 September 2005 the Regional Court upheld the partial decision.
17.  The case, in its part concerning the principal issue of the dispute, is still pending before the first instance court.
5.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Žalec.
6. On 1 December 1998 the applicant slipped in the premises of the company S and injured herself. S had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZA.
7.  On 14 July 1999 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZA in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 2,210,310 tolars (approximately 9,210 euros) for the injuries sustained.
Between 16 September 1999 and 17 April 2003 the applicant lodged four preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.
Between 8 May 2001 and 21 March 2002 she made three requests that a date be set for a hearing.
Of the four hearings held between 12 September 2002 and 8 May 2003, none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.
During the proceedings, the court appointed a medical expert and once examined a witness at home.
At the last hearing, the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 23 June 2003.
8.  On 4 July 2003 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju). ZM cross-appealed.
On 7 April 2005 the court allowed both appeals in part and remitted a part of the case to the first-instance court for re-examination.
The judgment was served on the applicant on 5 May 2005.
9.  On 21 September 2005 the applicant withdrew her claim since the parties had reached an out-of-court settlement. In the letter to the Celje District Court of 21 September 2005, she waved her right to receive the court’s written decision on termination of the proceedings.
5.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Žalec.
6.  On 6 December 1996 the applicant was injured in a car accident. The perpetrator of the accident had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT.
7.  On 11 November 1997 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 3,312,900 tolars (approximately 13,800 euros) for the injuries sustained.
Between 21 May 1999 and 4 March 2003 the applicant lodged four preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.
Between 2 April 1998 and 21 May 1999 he made five requests that a date be set for a hearing.
On 5 November 2001 the judge presiding the case was appointed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju) and the case was assigned to a new first-instance court judge.
Of the five hearings held between 11 October 1999 and 18 April 2003 none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.
During the proceedings the court appointed two medical experts. The court also sought an additional opinion from one of the appointed experts.
At the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 17 June 2003.
8.  On 24 June 2003 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court. ZT cross-appealed.
On 2 February 2005 the court allowed the appeals in part, lowered the damages awarded, and remitted the case, in the part concerning the costs and expenses of the proceedings, to the first-instance court for re-examination.
The judgment was served on the applicant on 9 March 2005.
9.  On 4 April 2005 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).
The proceedings are still pending.
5.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Velenje.
6.  On 2 April 1995 the applicant had a traffic accident. While he was driving a motorcycle, a dog jumped on the applicant and made him fall. The dog’s owner had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT.
7.  On 25 August 1997 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 231,201 tolars (approximately 965 euros) for the injuries sustained.
Between 23 March 1999 and 4 October 1999 the applicant made five requests that a date be set for a hearing.
On 13 March 2000 and 24 March 2000 he lodged preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.
Of the five hearings held between 8 March 2000 and 28 June 2000 none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.
At the last hearing the court decided to issue a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim, was served on the applicant on 14 December 2000.
8.  On 27 December 2000 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju) against the decision on costs and expenses. ZT cross-appealed.
On 6 February 2002 the court allowed both appeals and remanded the case back to the first-instance court for re-examination.
The decision judgment was served on the applicant on 7 March 2002.
9.  On 12 March 2002 the applicants lodged preliminary written observations with the first-instance court.
On the 29 May 2002 the court held a hearing and rejected the applicant’s claim for costs and expenses.
The decision was served on the applicant on 4 June 2002.
10.  On 5 June 2002 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court.
On 8 October 2003 the court allowed the appeal and increased the amount of damages awarded.
The judgment was served on the applicant on 21 October 2003.
5.  The applicant was born in 1976 and lives in Velenje.
6.  On 14 January 1998 the applicant was injured in a car accident. She was insured with the insurance company ZT.
7.  On 24 July 1998 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT in the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) seeking damages in the amount of 2,080,314 tolars (approximately 8,680 euros) for the injuries sustained. She also requested to be exempted from paying the court fees.
On 2 March and 27 September 1999 the applicant requested that a date be set for a hearing.
On 20 October 1999 the court rejected her request for the exemption from the payment of the court fees. The decision was served on the applicant on 2 November 1999.
On 15 November 1999 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju).
On 16 February 2000 the court partly upheld her appeal and the case was returned to the first-instance court for re-examination. The decision was served on the applicant on 6 March 2000.
On 16 March 2000 the applicant submitted new evidence in support of her claim for exemption from payment of the court fees.
On 29 March 2000 the applicant was exempted from payment of the court fees. The decision was served on the applicant on 14 June 2000.
On 30 March and 9 April 2000 the applicant requested that a hearing be scheduled.
Between 17 July 2001 and 4 April 2002 the applicant lodged three preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence.
Of the three hearings held between 4 June 2000 and 27 May 2002 none was adjourned at the request of the applicant.
During the proceedings the court appointed two medical experts.
At the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment. The judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part, was served on the applicant on 2 September 2002.
8.  On 17 September 2002 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court. ZT cross-appealed.
On 13 November 2003 the court allowed both appeals in part and lowered the damages awarded.
The judgment was served on the applicant on 19 December 2003.
9.  On 30 December 2003 the applicant lodged a motion with the Supreme State Prosecutor’s Office (Vrhovno državno tožilstvo, “the Office”) requesting it to lodge a request for the protection of legality (zahteva za varstvo zakonitosti) with the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče).
On 3 February 2004 the Office rejected the applicant’s request.
10.  On 13 April 2004 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal against the judgments of the first and second-instance courts.
On 4 May 2005 the Constitutional Court (Ustavno sodišče) dismissed the appeal. The court found that the applicant’s motion of 30 December 2003 was not a legal remedy available to a party to the civil proceedings and that no constitutional appeal was allowed against the decision of the Office. In addition, the court found that the constitutional appeal against the Celje Higher Court judgment was out of time.
The judgment was served on the applicant on 6 May 2005.